IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
XXXX – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(Crl.) No. 445 of 2022
Decided on : 07-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
K.BABU, J.
A South Indian film actress, who was subjected to gang rape and sexual harassment, is before the Court complaining that the sexually explicit videos allegedly recorded by the culprits, which were seized and produced before the Court as evidence and kept in the safe custody of the Court, were unauthorisedly accessed, viewed, copied and transmitted. She apprehends that the contents of the video may be disseminated at any moment. The distress of the victim is beyond imagination.
2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station. The case was registered based on the First Information Statement given by her on 18.02.2017, alleging that she was subjected to gang rape and sexual harassment. The Police submitted the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The case is now pending as Sessions Case No.118/2018 before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
3. The prosecution alleges offences punishable under Sections 120A, 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 506(i), 201, 204, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. The petitioner pleaded the following:
4.1. The petitioner was on her way to Ernakulam from Thrissur on 17.02.2017 in a Mahindra XUV car bearing registration No.KL-39-F-5744. Accused Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No.7 (accused No.8) hatched a criminal conspiracy to abduct the petitioner and commit rape on her. The petitioner was going from her home in Thrissur to Ernakulam to record a promotional song in connection with the movie 'Honey Bee 2'. Accused No.2, Martin Antony, was entrusted with picking up the petitioner from her house. Accused No.1 Sunil, made all arrangements to execute the crime as planned.
4.2. Accused No.2 moved to Ernakulam with the petitioner at about 7.45 p.m. He informed accused No.1 of the time-to-time locations throughout the journey. As planned, accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 were waiting in front of the Adlux Convention Centre, Angamaly, in a tempo traveller bearing registration No.KL-60-A-9338 awaiting the arrival of the vehicle carrying the petitioner.
4.3. When the vehicle carrying the petitioner reached in front of the Adlux Convention Centre, accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 followed the vehicle. When both the vehicles arrived at Kottai near Athani junction, accused No.1 intentionally hit his vehicle slightly behind the vehicle by which the petitioner was travelling with intent to create a fake accident scene as designed. This happened at 9.15 p.m. The intention of the accused was to stop the vehicle by which the petitioner was travelling. Accused No.2 stopped the vehicle, got down from the driver's seat, and made accused Nos.3 and 4 enter the car without her consent. They caught hold of her mouth and hand, overpowered her, and forcefully took away her mobile phone. Thereafter, accused No.2 entered the car, closed all the windows, centre locked the vehicle doors, wrongfully confined her in the car, and continued their journey towards Ernakulam.
4.4. Accused No.1 followed the car in the tempo traveller. Accused Nos.5 and 6 were waiting at Apollo Junction, Kalamassery.
When both the vehicles reached Apollo Junction, Kalamassery accused No.5 approached the petitioner's vehicle and got inside with the active connivance of accused No.2. After watching the situation in the car, accused No.5 got down from the vehicle and narrated the scene to accused No.1. Then accused No.6 got into the petitioner's vehicle and confined her in the rear seat along with accused No.3 and continued the journey. When they reached Palarivattom, accused No.6 got out of the vehicle, and accused No.5 got inside and sat beside her and confined her in the rear seat along with accused No.3. Accused No.4 also entered the vehicle and sat in the front side
Bandekar Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni (AIR 2020 SC 4247)
Basir-Ul-Huq v. State of W.B. (AIR 1953 SC 293)
CBI v. M. Sivamani (2017) 14 SCC 855 .
Gopalakrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy (1983) 4 SCC 240 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 822 : AIR 1983 SC 1053
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
B.Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry (AIR 1967 SC 1480)
CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka (2003) 11 SCC 251
Perumal v. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377
P.Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala
Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat (1971) 2 SCC 376 .
Perumal v. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377 .
State of Punjab v. Raj Singh (1998) 2 SCC 391 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 642
AI
Unauthorized access to evidence in court custody constitutes a violation of privacy rights, necessitating an inquiry to uphold the dignity and fundamental rights of the victim.
The fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and must bow down to compelling public interest. The admissibility of memory card evidence without certification under Section 65-B of....
The right to privacy must bow down to compelling public interest, and certification under Section 65-B of the Act is needed when the recording is to be produced in trial as evidence.
Accused cannot obtain copies of statements recorded under Section 164, CrPC, before filing of charge-sheet, despite them being public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
Point of Law : Transactions that attract the offence under section 193 of the IPC and the other offences not covered under section 195 of Cr.P.C are inseparable.
Important Point:a) A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiryb) it was the duty of the prosecution to ensure fair trial for both the prosecution and the ....
The accused has a constitutional right to inspect all materials collected by the investigation, including non-relied documents, at the charging stage to ensure a fair trial and prevent prejudice, as ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.